The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the victim of this case is the parent-child of the defendant with interest on the third grade intellectual disabled, and that the victim's statement did not have any logical rationality as much as the victim of other general sexual assault cases.

Even if a victim, who is a disabled person, consistently made a statement at an investigative agency to "the victim's sexual intercourse against the victim's will", and the defendant committed the crime of this case by recognizing the credibility of such victim's statement.

a full determination may be made.

2. The lower court determined that the victim consistently had sexual intercourse against the victim’s will by the victim against the victim’s intention.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant committed a crime as stated in the facts charged.

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude it, the Defendant was acquitted.

(1) A victim seems to have a profound adult awareness compared to the same age and age as a person with a disability with intellectual disability 3 who has been judged as a person with intellectual disability, but has the ability to make a detailed statement according to the flow of time, even though he/she is able to make a specific case experienced by himself/herself.

I seem to appear.

(2) The Defendant is not in a state of health, such as expansion of the her uniforms due to symptoms of liveral depression, stressed infection, etc.

③ The statement made by the victim is not consistent with the frequency of crime, lack of specification in the statement about damage situations compared to the ability to make a statement, the possibility of external intervention cannot be ruled out, it is against the rule of experience, the health condition of the accused, and the testimony of objective witnesses, and the details of the report are not reliable due to suspicion.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and erroneous.